An Old Chateau Concept Confirmed By Science

Years ago, the writers of this blog made the bold and controversial assertion that female economic empowerment and growing government largesse were helping to fuel the desire of women to ride the alpha cock carousel in their 20s, only to settle down with a beta provider later in life when their sexual peak had been passed.

Bleeding heart compassion has cursed blessed the country with layers of safety nets that subvert the natural cleansing of losers from contributing to the next generation. The result of all this government largesse is the substitution of handouts for husbands. When provider males who are predisposed to marry and support a family are worth less on the market than they used to be they are slowly replaced by playboys taking advantage of the sexual climate. Women who have their security needs met by Big Government (in combination with their own economic empowerment) begin to favor their desire for sexy, noncommital alpha males at the expense of their attraction for men who will foot the bills.

Prediction: As women’s financial status rises to levels at or above the available men in their social sphere, they will have great difficulty finding an acceptable long-term partner. The men, for their part, will turn away from emphasizing their ability to provide as they discover their mediocre-paying corporate jobs are no longer effective displays of mating value. They will instead emphasize the skills of “personality dominance”.

This blog = perceptive. Prophetic, even. Now science has come around to the Chateau point of view with a new study that shows women with money problems prefer softer, beta men who would make good resource provider candidates.

Those [women] primed to worry about their finances showed the least interest in the macho men, the Royal Society journal Biology Letters reports.

This, according to the Australian researchers, suggests that when money is short women are attracted to gentler types, who are seen as good providers and more likely to stick around when times are tough.

The macho men, however, were most attractive to the women made to worry about their health.

This may be because masculinity can be a sign of good genes – and a man who will give a woman strong and healthy children.

The researchers concluded there are evolutionary advantages in a woman’s taste in men being flexible.

This would allow women ‘to adapt their preferences to rapid changes in the environment such as pathogen outbreak or a famine’, they said.

Or to adapt their preferences to rapid changes in the environment such as the introduction of the Pill, feminism and economic self-sufficiency.

So here we have scientific evidence proving a core Chateau concept that women who are materially comfortable — as many women became after their assault on the workforce and colleges beginning in the 1970s — are less likely to seek out beta providers and more likely to indulge their hypergamous drives and sex it up with studly alpha cads; that is, until Father Time cruelly etches the first of his brandings on delicate, feminine faces. This would go a long way to explaining why age of first marriage has been steadily climbing since 1970; more years devoted to schooling to make the middle class money, yes, but also more years to slut it up with the high status alphas women truly desire but don’t need for material resource procurement.

Women who missed the big feminist bandwagon of the last 40 years and didn’t go to college or make a decent salary are the ones who pine for gentle, beta herbs to take them under their wing and provide a home, food and shopping money. So feminism has indeed been a boon for alpha males who want sex on the cheap with a harem of hypergamous concubines, and a living hell for betas who have been left out in the cold, waiting their turn for the ladies to age into their late 20s and 30s before getting a chance to drop on bended knee for the last ditch lock-up.

Also of note: Women who worried about health problems were attracted to the masculine studs. So if you are an alpha male with game and a goal to bed as many women as possible before kicking off, your best bet is to target hypochondriac careerist chicks.

If you are a beta male who would love nothing more than to snuggle after gently executed missionary sex and debate which color to paint the foyer, your best bet is to target in-shape athletic women who come from poor families and have crappy jobs.

Like this:

Related

199 Responses

Brutal. I presume this attraction is subconscious and she doesn’t notices who she’s feeling attracted to. Rather than a conscious gold-digging mode where she is planning to find some sucker to solve her money problems.

Women across all sections of society and ethnicities have expressed rather explicitly a desire for a rich or well-off partner, in my UK/UAE-centric experiences. I do mean upper, middle and lower classes all. It’s also a global trope of romance novels and chick flicks/lit. Of course this is within the context of ticking all the boxes including alpha-ish qualities, but even as these women become older and become more realistic: they do say they need ‘security’, huge expensive rings, a certain lifestyle and so on.

It’s not unconscious. Men are always regarded as the safety net in women when it comes to financial trouble, because that is a power an attractive woman will always have. The difference between a prostitute and a wife is how much attractive he has to be in other qualities for her to go for it. It is of course not as explicitly worded by these women because of the social shaming attached in the West.

I think the most important part of your post that many here are missing is that “It’s not unconscious”.

Many seem to want to believe that women are just settling for providers because they are too old and unattractive for an alpha playboy. No. They realize when it is time to live a more cushy, secure life especially as it relates to the timing of having children, and they choose the provider over the playboy, not settle for him

“Scratch that. Betas should target women who don’t give a shit about their health.”

Prolly 90% of women in the lower socioeconomic bracket don’t give a shit about their health, and it shows. These landwhales are the ones eating the non-food processed chemical product that comes out of fastfood/big-box store industrial agribiz, which makes them look like hippos, only less regal. So betas oughta find some solace in the sheer number of landwhales to choose from. But why bother?

And the hot, in-shape girls are a small demographic, so alphas and those who wannabe must compete for a small demographic slice, but these modern fitness bitches like to cock-hop so it’s all good, at least for casual sex.

The real demographic to lose out in this SMP? Men, alpha or beta, who do want to have a family, who want some sort of real emotional connection. We get to chose from fatties or sluts, largely. Granted, there are exceptions, and those rare, gleaming exceptions are the women many of us seek for LTR, but the competition is fierce, and further, the rare ones are often corrupted by their extremely high SMV and the lavish attention that their beta orbiters and BFFs provide.

Alpha up, gentlemen, and roll with the roughriders who write & comment here. There is no other choice. It’s a fuckin’ jungle out there.

It is more likely that society goes the direction of A Clockwork Orange. I am a college age beta, and, though I study game, it is difficult for me and friends not to feel so jaded at times that all I can think about sometimes is fucking other people’s shit up.

[Editor: Fucking shit up is practically a rite of passage. Never more so than in today’s culture.]

What created civilization was society removing “prehistoric mating habits” as an option for women. A man who has a wife who he at least thinks is devoted to him will work himself to death supporting his wife and kids. A man who doesn’t have a prospect of getting a wife and family will work just enough to support himself and buy some amusements.

It was patriarchy that created civilization, specifically fathers having veto powers over unsuitable suitors. If you were a beta with good earning power, you were approved. If you were a chronically unemployed alpha, you were tossed out the door, no matter how badly little Suzie’s vag ached for you.

It was patriarchy that also created feminism. Virtually all of the early feminists came from a patriarchal, middle-class background. The desire to protect and advance the interests of “Daddy’s little girl” is the dirty little secret behind both feminism and it’s alter ego, paternalism. Feminists have expertly played upon this instinct, rightly calculating that Daddy would never call them on it and withdraw his support, thus pulling the rug out from under cupcake’s precious and angelic feet.

Alas, the dowry system causes financial burden to the parents of daughters, which leads to favoring sons, which leads to an excess of men, which leads to more fierce competition over women. The only way to balance the situation is war, where excess men are killed.

“The dowry system, whatever else its faults, seems to have enabled betas to have a mate, children, sex, discouraged the proliferation of alphas etc, or so it seems”

Really? Look to China. Too many men. Not enough women. Women can’t take care of mom & dad in old age. Parents want males. Males want pussy. Oops. Not enough women.
“Hong Kong (UPI) Mar 09, 2004
A serious shortage of women is looming in China, threatening family and social stability in the world’s most populous country. Official statistics show that in 2002, for every 100 newborn girls, there were 117 boys born. If this trend continues, China will have up to 40 million more men than women by 2020”

40 million more betas that’ll have to fight it out over lack of pussy.

“With boys being viewed as culturally preferable, the practice of female infanticide — which had been common before 1949 but was largely eradicated by the 1950s — was resumed in some areas shortly after the one-child policy went into effect.”

“For thousands of years, the Confucian culture emphasized that strong families were the natural order. Children and wives were to obey the husband. The eldest son was to inherit the property, which was held in common, and the younger sons were to obey him. Upon marriage, the bride would move to the husbands household, where she would obey her mother-in-law. Her chief function was to produce a son and heir. Daughters were held in low esteem, because they were expensive to raise, and after marriage would no longer contribute to the family. Matchmakers arranged the marriages. Men often took second and third wives, and child brides were common. The individual families were integrated into the clan, which in turn were supposed to be subject to the emperor”

In latter day Rome it could be contracted that a womans dowry was to be returned to her if the husband was known to have participated in infidelity. Additionally, some women could have contracted to maintain control of whatever property came with her into marriage not including the dowry.

This works out perfectly. Men can adopt a cad strategy and produce illegitimate children who are then adopted out to the increasing cadre of educated, high-earning lesbian couples whose wombs have taken on Saharan qualities.

Nah, lesbians generally want to grow their own just like het women, they’ll turn around and hold you on the hook for child support and didn’t even get the sex. There’s no upside. Never volunteer to be the donor.

But seriously, when their daughter can’t get a decent man, is “cutting” or on drugs and/or works a stripper pole and the same time they’re eyeing that hunky gardner or poolboy after say how sexist it is to “objectify” women.

This is why I go for 18-20 year old women. I’m not taking some guys leftovers. I’m not dating some chick who got nailed for 4-6 years in college by multiple alpha’s and then raising her kids that she tosses in daycare because she can’t stay home. NO! NO! HELL NO! Learn game, BECOME alpha. Find a nice woman who will actually stay home with the kids and is at least willing to put her career on hold or work part time while the kids are young. No feminists, no careerists, and no liberals.

I’m the same way….I have a mental block taking some guys leftovers. To be clear I don’t have a problem fucking them, just calling them back the next day is the hard part. So I don’t.

Surprisingly there are quite a few 18-20 year olds who are not very sexually experienced when they come to college and stay that way for a year or two.

But once they get above 21 and the college scene has corrupted them, you’re likely going where a dozen men have gone before. I’ve seen many chicks who come from good families, good suburbs, and don’t even dress very slutty…..end up doing things sexually I never would have pegged them doing.

It’s becoming impossibly rare though for a woman to go through college without having several sexual partners. All college has descended to is a beer-guzzling 5 year vacation with alpha cock-riding and no real learning. Paid for by daddy’s money.

Bob, your 18 to 20 year old? Unless she is a virgin when you meet her, she’s been tapped like a pony keg at a frat party all through high school. Regardless of the fact that she said there was only one other.
Pay attention to how well she sucks dick. If she’s good or great, you are not her first or second.

Welcome to the Cloward-Piven stratgy for the “personal is political” feminazi set… we’ll have to accept their low-smv, skanky asses when all women are a bunch of worthless sluts. There are no winners ’cause they’re ALL ‘hos!

While I wouldn’t say giving women the right to vote has helped this country (quite the opposite as we have seen with the welfare state) I’d approach the issue of women enfranchisement differently.

We’re a republic with a constitution, not a democracy. Democracy appears nowhere in the Constitution or Declaration and our Founder’s openly despised it. The welfare state is wholly unconstitutional but put into place by liberal, activist judges.

So theoretically speaking giving women the right to vote shouldn’t matter since government has no power to enact a welfare state anyway, as anytime Congress passed an entitlement program it should immediately be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

But I’m living in La-La Land now…..the natural progress of women enfranchisement would inevitably lead to where we are now. One can’t expect the betas, shit even 98% of men for that matter, inhabiting political offices to hold firm and actually defend their oath of office without caving into the all-mighty pussy.

“Democracy is woman’s greatest invention. Indeed, it even reflects her character: purposeless, irrational, subject to public opinion and passing fashions, rambling, confused, underhanded, scheming, in love with its own purity.”

“There cannot be true democracy unless women’s voices are heard. There cannot be true democracy unless women are given the opportunity to take responsibility for their own lives. There cannot be true democracy unless all citizens are able to participate fully in the lives of their country. [July 11, 1997]” – Hillary Clinton

But according to Dr Bourke, most women decided themselves that a better way to take advantage of rising wages was to spend time creating a comfortable home.

The shift away from paid work occurred at a time when employment opportunities were actually growing more attractive for women, Dr Bourke said. The range of new jobs open to them was increasing, and women’s wages were rising at a faster rate than men’s.

It’s a win-win scenario, for everyone: scientists are developing a drug which will unleash cuckold fetish receptors in the human male, with the goal of releasing males from the inhibition surrounding cuckoldry. Once men no longer fear being cuckolded and embrace raising a fraudulent genetic legacy, everyone wins.

The world will be a much better place when we have a cure for that. And if there isn’t natural selection will take care of all men liable to impregnation fetishes (though not perhaps people who just enjoy watching their wife get fucked but still don’t want other guys children).

To elaborate: Without mate guarding selective pressures for the kind of things that enable modern hedonism are out the window.

Sure if you limit reproduction and engange in eugenics, one could create a civlization that shares and celebrates that fetish. But if we are changing manking in such a radical way… why not just get rid of women?

I don’t know about you (heh), but I’d rather enjoy fucking a dude (even taking up my ass) than enjoy watching him have sex or impregnate a girl I’m supporting. Its less demeaning and damaging to the soul.

What makes me optimistic about the future is that if all male gay and cuck dystopian societies fight the all male civlization building one would win. Love the smell of evolution in the morning.

How many people enjoy the fetish has nothing to do with how sick (maladaptive) it is. Also I suspect low T men may be more vulnerable to this, that also explains the favourable coverage of it of “high IQ” low T journalist SWPLs (in the closet and trying to normalize their deviation, duh).

Also any wife who’s husband has such a fantasy and brings it up is doing humanity a favour by not spreading his genes.

LOL Wut? No. Also what’s with the slurs? You really need to up your reading comprehension.

Much like European contact with the new world brought new diseases to America, European contact with Africa brought new diseases into Europe. Tropical diseases obviously where tied to the climate, but sexually transmitted diseases weren’t (STDs have left Africa even in modern times).

While the pathogen may have originated in Africa (as many STDs do), it had to adapt to a spreading in a more monogamous mate guarding society. The bug had to change and reduce mate guarding. Either it evolved to do this in a different way than it did in Africa or Europeans (latter Asians as well) probably had little immunity to start with since it was a new bug. It has nothing to do with making Blacks more or less desirable.

Wow, great. I see myself in this post. I’m a hypochondriac careerist chick looking for an alpha. I’m not ill, I just feel somewhat weak (even though I’m not totally lazy, nor fat etc.) so I don’t want to have a guy who’s “weak” as well.

I recommend cuckolding a beta provider. Find yourself an alpha. You can do this by going to a gym and simply surrounding yourself with sweating men; the sweat will arouse you and there is the chance a strong and muscular man will find you attractive. But you must already have a beta boyfriend. Simply cuck him. It’s easy. Sleep with the sweaty guy at the gym and when you sleep with your beta, make sure you take the pill. When you sleep with the sweaty man, go off the pill. Everybody wins.

Might not want to go down that road, Maya. You’d be surprised how many languages many of us guys speak. (Me? English, 日本語, Deutsch, a tiny bit of 漢語, very basic Russkii, and enough Espanol and Italiano to order a beer and joke around.)

“Learn game, BECOME alpha. Find a nice woman who will actually stay home with the kids and is at least willing to put her career on hold or work part time while the kids are young. No feminists, no careerists, and no liberals.”

You, Bob, are not alpha. I’m amazed at all the betas who come here to whine. Bang lots of chicks as hot as you can get until your 80 year old pecker don’t work anymore. That is all.

@Beer Monkey: Agree. I’m non-religious and conservative and we’re rare as hell. My friends and family think I went insane recently, that’s why I had to search the internet last week to find some support and so I spent every free minute on this blog for the last two days.

If you are a beta male who would love nothing more than to snuggle after gently executed missionary sex and debate which color to paint the foyer, your best bet is to target in-shape athletic women who come from poor families and have crappy jobs.

The last sentence describes what works best for any man in LTRs. Too many women will mistake the role of their money for desirability. They really think we want the all shit they spend money on. Dirt poor, young, beautiful and rejected credit applications makes for the best prospects for anything you have in mind. A woman’s income is the best place to start to find out how over extended she is.

I’m a beta who’s been learning game from this blog for quite some time now. Landed an atrractive girl very, very easily with a great body (gym teacher) and she’s head over heels in love with me. She rests her head on me and sleeps like a baby in 2 minutes flat, repeating “I love you”s in the process.

I have a pretty decent job and am saving money to buy an apartment. Will have enough money in a year. She has a crappy job. Apparently, according to this post, I went for the exactly right target.

Also, under my influence, she is starting cooking school and is excited about it. She has a sweet little round ass. Life is pretty damn good right now.

I wonder how many men have had their lives ruined by bogus rape or assault claims. I’m glad this guy was able to get his life back in some fashion. I just cant believe they get joint custody after all that shit she put him through.

Speaking of child custody, my friend’s ex-wife got remarried to a convicted child molester and he has been trying to get sole custody of his son. The court however, insists on joint custody with overnight weekend visits.

“Speaking of child custody, my friend’s ex-wife got remarried to a convicted child molester and he has been trying to get sole custody of his son. The court however, insists on joint custody with overnight weekend visits.”

As I’m reading this post in a coffee shop, there’s a morbidly obese woman sitting next to me going off about how personality trumps beauty, how all of her ex boyfriends desperatley loved her but left her because “she was too good for them,” and how she feels that she’s the last woman standing with a “head on her shoulders.”

Not sure why this post is so shatteringly insightful. It’s always been true that giving people more money means giving them more choices.

Post-1945 economic growth meant that by late 1950s, the US had lots of single middle class men who could afford to date around and/or delay marriage while indulging expensive hobbies. There’s a reason Hefner was successful in the 1950s, not the 1930s. (That’s also the reason why Playboy which is now passe in US, represents the good life for men in developing countries. They love not getting married at 18, having 5 kids by age 25 and then dying from overwork by 45. No, they too would rather acquire a taste for expensive wine.)

By the 1970s, women started to do likewise. Good jobs/education mean they didn’t have to marry the first jerk who came sniffing around. Instead they pursued careers, traveled, bought expensive toys — and fucked around, sampling lots of cock. (I’m not suggesting that sleeping around and delaying marriage is a smart move for women, just saying that it happened.)

No need for a lot a fancy theories to explain what is self-evidently obvious.

1. Back in the old days, your mom really did love your beta provider dad.

2. Back in the old days, money really was a viable strategy for getting girls.

3. Back in the old days, there were too many other variables that got in the way of studying pure sexual attraction among women. Which is why game wasn’t developed until just recently. (Another big factor was the rise of the internet, which enabled large numbers of men to compare notes.)

There is an inverse relationship between how charming and handsome a man is and how much he is willing to go out of his way for you. Men who aren’t as appealing to women because they aren’t charismatic or particularly good looking tend to be willing to work harder for you. It’s a trade off in my experience.

Spot on. Back in the day on FC someone called this the ultimate extreme dating sport for women: jump out of the plane, string the euphoric freefall out to the last instant and then pull the ripcord and land a good provider husband. And, as you’ve pointed out elsewhere, misjudging the distance to the wall – er, ground, can have unfortunate results.

There is an inverse relationship between how charming and handsome a man is and how much he is willing to go out of his way for you. Men who aren’t as appealing to women because they aren’t charismatic or particularly good looking tend to be willing to work harder for you. It’s a trade off in my experience.

The Sexual Revolution promised all men a shot at the orgy. But the reality is that females cluster around the “alpha” males, leaving your average guy in the cold, or perhaps allowing him to take care of her, her children from another guy, and her STDs, in middle age. One wonders if Hefner and other proponents of the Sexual Revolution were aware of what they were doing from the get-go: con people into thinking that they too could have access to a sexual utopia, then use this as an opening to get it on with tribal nubile females while “beta” and lower males circle about, waiting for their chance — which never comes.

Same for politicos who implemented no-fault divorce, feminist-enabling laws, and so forth. This was all a means to get lower caste males out of the competition and thus reserve the genetic mating grounds for their exclusive use. Women, meanwhile, being on auto-pilot via their genetic programming, line up for these top dogs.

You also wonder what will happen as future generations continue this downward slide. Consider the disintegration of the American inner cities, showcases for female headed families, “alpha” male predation, and beta providers being driven out via welfare state policies. And these pathologies are now getting into the middle class.

Meantime, we see the frontiers collapse with waves of illegal immigration. But then what do we expect? The “beta” yeoman-citizen-soldier has been disenfranchised, has lost his stake in hearth and home, is considered something of a second-rater by females. So why bother? Meantime, more dynamic peoples are reproducing and filling the voids.

“Men would hang around them to have sex with the sick, and often dying, young women in these institutions.”
Were these beta type men? Like the nice guy betas? The ones who complain about the evil women?

Men have over 200 countries (i.e. Brazil, Spain, Mexico, Thailand and so on)

If betas would save their money, they could have access to a sexual utopia in other countries where they are the “prize.”

Get your passports now and SEE the world.

Quote:
“Women who missed the big feminist bandwagon of the last 40 years and didn’t go to college or make a decent salary are the ones who pine for gentle, beta herbs to take them under their wing and provide a home, food and shopping money. So feminism has indeed been a boon for alpha males who want sex on the cheap with a harem of hypergamous concubines, and a living hell for betas who have been left out in the cold, waiting their turn for the ladies to age into their late 20s and 30s before getting a chance to drop on bended knee for the last ditch lock-up.”

LOL! I left the USA at age 24 because of this VERY true passage.

If you are over 25 and have not found a wife or started a family in the USA, LEAVE NOW!

All americunts over 25 are either used up, have kids, or only interested in squeezing 5 more years out of the alpha cock carousel.

I thank Roissy for pointing out the key concepts in the dating market so I was able to leave before the whole thing implodes along with the US dollar.

totally argue with the thrust of the post: both generous social welfare and female economic self-sufficiency erode a beta provider’s value.

it’s just funny that handouts and equal rights in the work force are two completely opposite developments. so even though your political prognostication was totally off — there is a shift from big government social welfare toward girls earning their own money — its all the same from the perspective of a provider beta.

You’re kidding, right? You think welfare spending is going down? And where do you think the bulk of female jobs come from? One way or another, the vast majority of women are getting Uncle Sam to be their sugar daddy, so Roissy is right.

If women were really making their own money, by producing things of value that beta males used to provide, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion, and only a small handful would be lamenting the loss of the beta, and it would be more along the lines of how we lament the loss of the dodo; purely for its own sake, not because of any importance

There are no equal rights in the work force, how many chicks do you see down the mines, on oil rigs or farming? Socialism and female power in society go hand in hand. Bitches can only exist in the work force through government hiring or government coercion of the private sector.

A bitch being on paid maternity leave while some guy is knocking about unemployed is INSANITY!

A change I perceive in this new era of self-sufficient women is that marrying and sustaining an economically dependent woman has lost all of its allure. Back in the day, it may have felt normal to pick a wife from her parent’s house and start earning money for everyone because it was the same with every other girl. Now that they can work on its own, the idea of a woman expecting me to pay all the bills turns me cynical: “no way I’m going to work all day long just to pay for your shit, you lazy whore. Go out and earn some money of your own if you want to wear that Gucci bag” which is something I wouldn’t have even thought before. This gives me mixed feelings: on the one side, yes it sometimes make me wish things were as easy as before; on the other, I lost all respect to older generations. What a bunch of suckers they were, marrying for life and working hard all day and still proud to their restricted access to a single lazy pussy when now we can just get all the fun of having sex with none of the obligations”.

Back then, the wife actually did work around the house. She had a hot meal ready when the man got home. She looked after the kids, cleaned the house and generally tended to the logistics of keeping the family going. The husband’s job was to bring in money. That was a partnership because if either party didn’t hold their end of the bargain, the whole thing fell apart. There were actual consequences back then to. The problem now is that the wife has become a lazy ass parasite. She wants the man to earn money for her to spend, but offers nothing in return. Plus, as an added bonus, she can up, leave and destroy his life with no consequences. The whole system is setup in a way to encourage corruption and indulgence in her base instincts.

I’m really at an impass right now. I’m a recovering beta. Up until about a year ago, I still went with the classic “I’ll love you forever” shit. This site, and a few others, taught me the stupidity of that and now I’m much more alpha. It feels much more natural than the bullshit I put out before. The women have been much better to. But, I’m one of the rare people whose parents have been married for over 30 years. I’ve been raised in a household where the marriage actually worked. I want one. But, this society is so fucking perverted and hedonistic that it’s almost impossible to find.

I resent the fact that in order to counter the bullshit that society keeps telling women, I had to waste time learning and studying Game. It’s been a big help, but I *shouldn’t* have had to. The time could have been better spent on other interests (ie. Engineering, maths, music, etc). This culture is caustic and can’t correct itself fast enough.

Learning game is not a waste of time. It’s just something you have to do to give yourself an edge. Just call it personality dominance, charisma, because that’s what it really is. It’s not any different than going to Toastmasters

Also, speaking of athletic girls… Which athletes are the most attractive? Or the best to date? I think that’s a good point of debate. As far as attractive, it’s volleyball or soccer for me. The womens world cup has reinforced this view. Although soccer girls’ legs are kinda muscle-y.

[Editor: Soccer girls are sexy. They have incredibly firm asses and smooth legs. Stay away from softballers, kickballers, field hockey players and rock climbers, all of whom tend toward the chunky and muscled end of the body spectrum. Marathon runners are a mixed bag. Some of them are too wiry, with poor skin tone. The best “athlete” girls in terms of body and sexual vitality? Yoga chicks.]

IME the sweetest ones played field hockey. They often weren’t as good looking, but they were the elementary schoolteacher types. But the volleyball players were lunch table princesses, the soccer players were the ones who went on to become high-T lawyer chicks.

“A change I perceive in this new era of self-sufficient women is that marrying and sustaining an economically dependent woman has lost all of its allure.”

No, not quite yet.

It may be starting to lose its allure, but these things take at least a decade or two or a generation or two to become reality.

Women are still being fooled by the corporations, media and marketeers into thinking that they can have it all.
In reality, very few can have it all and it’s usually the ones born into money, are freakishly talented/intelligent or make a living based on their looks… think supermodels, actresses.
Yet the media hold these women up as being an achievable goal for any common woman to aspire to and to work towards.

Modern women seem to think that because they work and can afford “designer” shit and are the envy of their other female friends (i.e. competitors) that they are entitled to a “designer” man.

Keep dreaming princess, that knight in the shining Armani suit is out there somewhere.

Earlier on, The Paradox of Choice by Barry Schwartz was mentioned.
It’s well worth a look, here…

Herein lies the big problem. Every kid, both male and female, is told that they can have it all. The media is full of it. Advertising is built on that idea.

It’s bullshit. It’s a myth. You can’t be a community builder and travel the world. You have to make a decision about what’s important to you and follow through. Sadly, women don’t seem to ever learn or understand this lesson. So, they keep trying to find an upgrade to whatever they have. It leads to ever increasing materialism and hypergamy. Men figure it out by 30.

It’s sick. But with the economic situation being what it is, it will correct soon. There will be lots of depressed princesses …

I’ve been advising for years that men in relationship should work to keep his woman economically down. I’ve also advised that it is in his best interest to be the sole business owner, and if the woman works, it should be for him. And one last important thing – he should arrange things such that the girl has no safety net, and understands in her bones that the man has a passport and will use it if things go sour – leaving her with nothing.

Females love differently than men do. Don’t be put off if they love out of need. Use that to advantage. Make them need you.

Btw, sorry it’s not all in one comment, but I’m curious about what you meant when you said “women love differently than men do”. I hear this a lot, but haven’t grasped the meaning behind this. Do you mean the “women love status, men love beauty” kind of thing?

Economic problems can lead to divorce due to too much stress, actually (mutual falling out of love and such). Plus someone once said “Men don’t love women, they just love ass and tits”, which I guess is why some of them say they’ll dump the girl if she gets ugly. Do they love the women or just what they can give them?

Say hello to your rationalization hamster regarding the first sentence. As for men, yes we love what the woman will do for us. We will fall out of lust immediately if she stops putting out. But love is a different thing. I still think fondly of my first ever girlfriend.

I was thinking about what happened to one couple I know, mostly. The economic crisis hit, the relationship got too strained, and they both allowed each other to date other people (and the guy started it, not the girl), later divorced. But I’m not saying a woman can’t divorce her husband if he loses his job. I only speak of what I know about.

This is off topic but are you guys all aware that DSK is about to be released due to the fact that the Sofitel maid is now understood by the cops to be a liar?

Every minute they keep him under house arrest now is an insult to men. He needs to be released today.

The African prostitute who accused him was apparently coached by the Tahirih Justice Center (the writers of the IMBRA law) regarding her asylum status. She knew all about how to string everyone along by pretending she had been raped and gen mutilated back in Africa.

Meanwhile, all spell checkers still won’t recognize the word misandrist.

Marathon runners are a mixed bag. Some of them are too wiry, with poor skin tone

It is amazing how even people who run long distance during the night manage to screw their skin, specially the face. It seems that the endorphine runners love so much ages people, at least facially, more than most drugs

I agree with all the things that this article is saying. What I don’t understand is why you men seem to think that this is a bad thing? Isn’t this a good thing? Aren’t you glad you don’t have to work in a coal mine/cubicle zoo just so some parasite can spend all of your money? Isn’t it a good thing that woman are willing to have sex with men without a government piece of paper? I’ve been reading many “men’s rights” and “game” websites since some stupid bitch trapped my brother into marriage. I really don’t understand why all these males seem to be pissed off that marriage as we KNEW it is for the most part gone. Why in the hell would you WANT a 50s type marriage? Seems like slavery too me? I’m happy that I don’t have to be married to simply survive? I got an education and a good job so that I WOULDN”T be a parasite on a man. Isn’t that a good thing?

If I’m still a parasite, what are you suggesting I do? Is the only thing that will satisfy you, davey is that I commit suicide? What would you have me do? I didn’t ask to be born…..I’ve definitely thought about suicide, but that would just leave a mess for my parents’ to clean up. So I figure the best thing I can do is feed and shelter myself. I don’t take any money from the government, in fact I don’t even get tax refunds (single, childless people with no mortgages pay full taxes, as in I get NO deductions). I don’t ever bother men, don’t go out to try to catch a man… what the hell else could I do? I make electricity for people to use, I save my money so that when I can’t work anymore I won’t be taking any government money. Geez, I don’t know what else I could

Don’t be so hard on yourself. If you’re working in a power plant, it’s ok.

But where do most women work? Stupid PR, marketing or HR corporate jobs that help destroy the social fabric of civilization; big-government jobs in regulation agencies that smother small businesses; crappy service-sector jobs that do not produce anything.

80 % of working women do not produce anything of value in terms of goods and innovation (well not in the West anyway, women in Asian slave-sweatshops do produce goods). This means that they are for the most part a drag on the economy. A great part of their wages are malinvestment and waste. The best thing they can produce is strong and intelligent babies.

Men have started giving up on being productive because there’s absolutely no rewards to it anymore. They are getting restless and very, very angry of being treated like scum, being shamed and being called racists and chauvinists because they don’t like their jobs being taken away.

There’s a lot of silly stuff in some of the negative reviews below (quotations are paraphrased):1) "Baker’s soft porn examples only deal with seedy, sleazy minority behavior. What about the vast majority who are monogamous?" This is multidimensionally silly. Firstly, statistics show that there is no such vast majority; to the extent that there is, it’s a vast majority of people who are socialized into paying lip service to one set of ideals while furtively doing something else as their subconscious constructs rationalizations and excuses for why their bodies didn’t follow the socialization to do X and went and did Y instead. Secondly, even if a set of circumstances is somewhat atypical, it can still exert decisive evolutionary pressure on a population, given millions of years to operate. If only 1% of people die in car wrecks, over time this will select against people who are bad drivers for genetic reasons (slow reactions, bad eyesight, weak attention span, etc.), though it may take many generations. Thirdly, if a minority trait or a tendency to a particular reproductive choice exists in a population to any significant degree (e.g., bisexuality, or women conceiving ~10% of children through cuckoldry), there *must* be an evolutionary reason for that trait or tendency to have not been eradicated by natural selection pressure. Baker’s "soft porn" examples merely work through some of the concrete reasons and situations for why these traits and tendencies might be preserved. Agree or disagree with them if you will, or suggest your own reasons, but merely dismissing them as minority cases is a cop-out.2) Several reviewers complained about "no hard data or bibliography." As another reviewer stated, the book written for academics by the same authors (Human Sperm Competition) has tons of hard data and a reference/bibliography section that goes on for twenty pages. "Sperm Wars" is written for the general public, so they (wisely) kept all the academic clutter out of this popularization.3) "It’s partly speculation and/or partly-unproven theories." Yes, the authors included some of their more daring ideas in the book (and it’s usually obvious where they do, sometimes because they say so); the authors speculate on the reason bisexuality exists, for example, and every educated reader should know without explicit disclaimers by the authors that there is no unanimity within science as to why it exists. Ditto on the authors’ ideas about why semen contains many different sperm types. However, I don’t agree with those who think that the layman should be excluded from reading about science that remains unfinished or getting the opinions of the various protagonists. The most interesting parts of science are often those where there is vigorous debate; covering the public’s ears while the scientists thrash it out is like sequestering the jury just when the lawyers are getting to the juicy stuff. And in this case, the issues being discussed affect everyone’s personal life and aren’t merely academic debates about missing dark matter in the cosmos or why dinosaurs became extinct.4) Finally, something that’s just incorrect rather than silly. One reviewer remarked that the math didn’t work out right on the authors’ theory about bisexuality (namely that bisexuality is not eradicated by natural selection because while bisexuals have fewer children, they have them earlier in life). However, the math does work out. Suppose one has two populations N and N*, and that the individuals of each population have on average M and M* children, respectively. After n generations, population N will grow to be N(n) = N(0)xM^n, where N(0) is the size of the initial population and N(n) is the size after n generations, with M^n denoting "M raised to the power n." Similarly, N*(k) = N*(0) x M*^k for the N* population after k generations (having k not equal to n is crucial; I suspect this was the other reviewer’s mistake). Dividing the two equations, one gets N*(k)/N(n) = {N*(0)/N(0)} x {M*^k/M^n} (call this equation I). If the ratio of the two populations remains stationary over time (e.g., bisexuals vs. heterosexuals), then N*(k)/N(n) = N*(0)/N(0) (call this equation II), PROVIDED that generation k of the N* population is alive at the same time that generation n of the N population is alive. If it takes the N population T years to reproduce and the N* population T* years to reproduce, then if t is the total elapsed number of years, n = t/T and k = t/T* (call these equations III & IV). If we apply equations II, III, and IV to equation I, we get that (M*)^(t/T*) = (M)^(t/T). Taking the logarithm of both sides and using the fact that log(a^b) = b x log(a), we get (t/T*) x log(M*) = (t/T) x log(M), and cancelling the t from both sides and rearranging yields the result T*/T = log(M*)/log(M). That’s the condition that must be satisfied if the ratio of the two populations is to stay the same over time. So if heterosexuals on average have 4 children and bisexuals on average have 3 children, then log(3)/log(4) = 0.79, so bisexuals must reproduce the next generation on average in a time T* equal to 79% of T if their percentage of the population is to stay the same over time.

[…] indicate that female infidelity is catching up with male infidelity, a social phenomenon which was described with alacrity by this very blog. However, what hasn’t changed is the fact that men are still the bigger […]